Case law

Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS

352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 18, 2005

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because the officers violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment Rights. … The court, however, finds that no clearly established right was violated by defendants’ conduct.

McDuffie v. Roscoe

679 So. 2d 641 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Apr 19, 1996

This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v. … "The duty to inspect the roads is an affirmative duty but one that also involves a type of discretion giving rise to qualified immunity.

Gerhart v. Lake County, Mont.

637 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity for the Individual Defendants [19] Qualified immunity shields the individual Commis- sioners from liability “insofar as their conduct d[id] not vio- late clearly established statutory or constitutional … We conclude that the right was clearly established, and conclude that the individual Commis- sioners are not entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Laquarius Gray v. Antonio Bostic

458 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity Principles “Qualified immunity offers a complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to evaluate whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Begay v. Hodel

730 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 24, 1990

On September 5, 1985, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the immunity of federal officials to claims where the plaintiffs rights are not clearly established. See Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government officials subject to damage awards when in violation of clearly established law).

Wilson v. City of Des Moines

160 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Jul 25, 2001

Katz, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (June 18, 2001) changed the landscape of qualified immunity. … Second, if a violation is established, courts are to determine whether the right was clearly established “on a more specific level than recognized by the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals.” Id. at 2155.

Chatman v. Ft. Lauderdale Police Department

688 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2016

to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … ANALYSIS On appeal, Deputy Wengert does not argue that Chatman’s right to be free from a prolonged dog bite after surrender was not clearly established under federal law.

Donovan v. City of Milwaukee

845 F. Supp. 1312 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 20, 1992

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue that they are protected from civil damages by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … This court does not agree with Donovan that Gamer creates clearly established law with respect to the present action.

Porter v. Caruso

479 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 26, 2007

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the focus is on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s actions in light of clearly established law. … When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity the Court must assess whether it was clearly established — as of the date the defendant acted — that the alleged actions violated federal law.

Nelson v. Stalder

135 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 13, 2001

of the clearly established legal rules. … The court finds that Nelson has satisfied his burden of rebutting defendants’ qualified immunity defense by establishing that the defendants’ actions violated a law which the court finds was clearly established, and by establishing

Barber v. Lynch

275 Pa. Super. 333 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1980

and qualified privilege or immunity. … The preliminary objections of Appellees do not specifically use the term “qualified privilege” or “qualified immunity”.

Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Department of Police

89 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2000

It is well-established that under the doctrine of qualified immunity: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly … Under the circumstances of this case, I find that the law at the time of the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not clearly established and therefore, Best, Massari, and Powell are entitled to qualified immunity. c. § 1983

McLaughlin v. CASLER

634 F. Supp. 2d 881 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2009

to qualified immunity. … with due process, and (3) the undisputed facts establish that Casler and Fritz are entitled to qualified immunity.

Zuchel v. Spinharney

890 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 1989

Runner, 854 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.1988): 8 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Id. 12 Officer Spinharney concedes that Zuchel's right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right. Opening Brief of Appellant at 24.

5 Borough Pawn, LLC v. City of New York

640 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 22, 2009

For example, when a court may easily decide that the alleged violation of the constitutional right was not clearly established, there is no need to reach the constitutional question. Id. … Marti alleges that he is entitled to qualified immunity under federal and state law for that arrest. Marti is wrong. Qualified immunity does not cloak him for this arrest.

Rodgers v. Hawley

14 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Thus, assuming Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood violated Irvin’s right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this violation involved a “clearly established … Because they did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of their actions, Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood are entitled to qualified immunity on Irvin’s retaliation claim. 6 IV For the reasons

Pine v. Synkonis

79 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

There was also evidence that damaged or missing guardrail had been left unrepaired for an extended period of time. 3 Qualified immunity Initially we must determine whether the Appellants are protected by the qualified immunity … In DuBree , the Court 4 analyzed prior law governing official immunity and established considerations for determining whether an official should be immune. These can be summarized as follows: 1.

Hall v. ACME MARKETS, INC.

110 Pa. Commw. 199 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1987

Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that officials are protected by a qualified immunity. … Id. at 545 , 393 A.2d at 295 . 2 Section 1 of the Act of May 18, 1923, P.L. 259. 3 In Witt , this court held that consecutive Secretaries of Banking were protected from suit by the immunity established in *206 DuBree .

Boyd v. Knox

47 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

The defendants then appealed the issue of qualified immunity. II. DISCUSSION An order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Henderson v. … Second, we must determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Riley

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 4, 2026

So, to avoid qualified immunity, Plaintiff must present evidence that these Defendants violated his statutory or constitutional rights and that it was “clearly established at the time” that their conduct did … Turning to qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit—citing Hale and other cases—determined the sheriff violated clearly established law. Id. at 1034.